As I listen to some of the BS from those who want to keep free people from protecting themselves and their loved ones with arms, it gets so weird I sometimes want to say, “Gosh, Toto, we’re not in Kansas anymore.” I couldn’t have said that ten days or so ago, when I was in Kansas, teaching a MAG-20 course on the rules of engagement for armed citizens. Kansas was one of those states which, not so long ago, had no provision for ordinary folks to carry loaded, concealed handguns in public. Now, thanks to lots of good, committed activists, they have egalitarian “shall issue” carry. There has been no blood in the streets, except maybe now and then the blood of violent criminals who suffered a sudden and acute failure of the victim selection process and attacked intended prey that beat them at their own game.
Old friend and tireless fighter for gun owners’ civil rights Dave Workman calls to our attention an excellent article in the Detroit Free Press, which overcame what some Michigan gun owners consider to be a long-standing anti-gun prejudice to publish some refreshingly honest journalism. On the ten year anniversary of that state switching from the old “may issue” paradigm, in which the authorities could arbitrarily decide whether or not to issue you a carry permit, to the modern egalitarian “shall issue” protocol that forces the state to grant the privilege to all sane, law-abiding citizens who apply, the Free Press did some digging. They discovered that blood doesn’t run in the streets, and a helluva lot of good people get peace of mind from the safety a defensive firearm affords them and their family. Some of those good people get more than that: they get to LIVE, when before they might have helplessly died. Way better than the bad old days when if you lived in Wayne County, the Detroit area, it was said that you pretty much had to contribute to the anti-gun mayor’s re-election campaign if you wanted a carry permit.
Read it HERE, complete with links.
Interesting that when the gun prohibitionists make lists of “Carry permit holders who turn killer,” they include suicides and presumably criminals killed in defense of innocent victims by concealed carry permit holders…
The brady bunch has been using those techniques to skew statistics for years. They include people over 18 as children in their studies, count suicide as gun crimes, and they count self defense shootings as homicides.
Statistics never lie but liars use statistics.
I think the left leaning citizens of this country are starting to see the light. Gun ownership and the # of guns in this country is increasing. Concealed carry is increasing rapidly and legal the naysayers have been shown to be wrong time and time again. Of the crime studies performed, they all show that the prevalence of concealed carry either reduces crime or that is stays the same…none of them show that it increases crime. Legal carryiers are the most law abiding citizens.
Thanks, Mas – I wouldn’t have seen Workman’s article otherwise.
Well done, but instead of “…not so long ago, had no provision for ordinary folks to carry loaded, concealed handguns in public…”, shouldn’t you have written: “…not so long ago, had provisions in its laws which restricted the right of ordinary folks to carry loaded, concealed handguns in public…”?
The 2nd Amendment law of the land is the only legal ‘provision’ any law-abiding citizen SHOULD need in order to ‘carry loaded, concealed handguns in public’.
Mas,
Check your hotlinks in the article…they aren’t clickable.
Mas,
I have enjoyed and learned from your works for years. What is the best way to contact you? I’d like to discuss several areas of concern with you.
Yours in Freedom,
Bruce A. Beatty
TSgt, USAF (Retired)
Denton, Texas
Since when did a right become a “privilege”?
Gotta love “statistics” Mas.
My favorite anti-gunner “statistic” is when they throw in every war casualty in history into their figures to inflate the numbers. Part of me wonders if they only put in casualties from small-arms or just everything. The other part of me knows the answer…
My second favorite “statistic” is all the “children” killed by guns. You know the “statistic” that has “children” up to 24 and are involved in gang related activities…
It’s nice when someone who was anti-gun can come out and admit their fears about guns were unfounded. Especially when they have some influence.
In my short time on the planet there I’ve noticed three general groups of anti-gunners:
1. The Ones with an Agenda- These people hate guns and gun owners because it goes against their agenda, whatever it may be. Some politicians fit here. They don’t care about the facts and ignore or twist them. Funny enough a lot of them have armed guards…
2. The Misinformed- Probably a good chunk of the public could fit here. Thanks to anti-gunners and the media, they think guns are bad. But generally they are reasonable enough and can change their opinion when presented facts.
3. The hoplophobe- These people have anywhere from an aversion to rabid fear of guns. Sometimes you can reason with them, sometimes you’re better off banging your head on a rock.
I have an aunt who is pretty well educated but just mentioning the word “gun” around her will send her into near hysterics. Growing up, she forbid any kid from even making finger guns around her or her kids. I don’t even think you could say “gun” around her or her kids.
Needless to say, they’re a happy flock of sheep where violence only exists on television, and her solution to that is forbid watching violent programs.
Thanks for this post, Mas, very interesting move on the papers part. I wonder what caused it? Bet the folks at Bradyville are spittin’ nails. We should hear another round of the usual B.S. anytime now.
When things start to get weird in discussions with anti-gunners I like to use the line “Hey, what planet are you *from* anyway???”
It doesn’t have too much of an effect on the person(s) I’m talking with but the fence sitters (who are listening and are my real audience) get it, usually with a chuckle.
One thing that anyone carrying in Kansas ( with KS or reciprocal out of state permits) should be aware of: There are several KS area jurisdictions that have specific prohibitions against otherwise legal concealed carry. Some of these are Overland Park and Wichita, to the best of my knowledge. I recently moved from Kansas and I believe that there is no easy way to find out which jurisdictions have local ordinances banning otherwise legal concealed carry. In addition a Kansas resident must have a KS issued permit. Out of state issued permits are not valid if you have a Kansas driver’s license.
Florida (as an example) bans local ordinances that restrict otherwise legal carry, but there are no preemption laws in Kansas. So be careful if you carry in KS.
Wouldn’t it be nice if some legislator introduced a bill to require local entities in a state to register on a central website any locations banning CCW? But that is too logical.
Mas:
I truly believe that for most of the anti-gun cabal, this is not about crime prevention.
I was in a grad school discussion on the subject of campus carry, and the theme presented over and over was ” I am uncomfortable with anyone who is not a paid agent of the state ( ie-military and police) with having the means to apply deadly force.
These people , I believe, are projecting; they do not trust themselves to use good judgement in a potential self-defense scenario, and cannot conceive of a normal private citizen being able to do so. So…. they want to “leave it to the professionals”.
One person I spoke with suggested that if a few innocent people die because they cannot defend themselves with a firearm, too bad: ” That’s the price we pay for living in a civilized society”.
This communitarian/socialist attitude ultimately goes back to the idea that YOU are not your owner, but rather the State owns you, and you should not be allowed to go beyond action performed by the state to protect yourself. They are quite all right with ” dial 911 and pray” approach ( well, many of them would be offended by the ” pray ” part” ) but the idea that you would ” do it yourself defense” is anathema.
Being a victim , according to them, gives you an aura of ” socially conscious sacrifice”.
This is not about crime prevention, it is about liberty and who is ultimately responsible for me, a law abiding citizen.
They6 are enemies of liberty and common sense.
Regards
GKT
@GKT
That’s some interesting (and frightening) insight. It’s the first time I’ve heard it in a “higher” education system. The one I’m most used to in educational settings and in general is “guns are inherently evil/scary”.
I keep the topic of CCW quiet but a few people such as family members know I own firearms for defensive use. Once in awhile the topic might pop up and I love it when I’m asked “…you don’t keep your guns loaded….do…you…?”. Now I just answer no. It makes all our lives easier. I once made the mistake of saying yes and it was so horrible for some of my family they “forgot” it the next day.
A couple of responses that would have been fun for GKT’s discussion:
“Because you aren’t capable of something, the rest of us automatically aren’t? Because you can’t run a 6 minute mile, therefore it’s impossible? May I have your autograph Pinnacle of Human Evolution?”
“A criminal getting shot is suffering from an occupational hazard of living in a armed and civilized society.”
Greg tag says:….This communitarian/socialist attitude ultimately goes back to the idea that YOU are not your owner, but rather the State owns you, and you should not be allowed to go beyond action performed by the state to protect yourself. They are quite all right with ” dial 911 and pray” approach ( well, many of them would be offended by the ” pray ” part” ) but the idea that you would ” do it yourself defense” is anathema.
Greg put it very well into words what has happened to large areas of the world besides the USA. As I type this I am watching a live feed on the BBC of the riots that have been going on in London for 3 days. A city which has not only disarmed its citizens but its police force for the most part. Some comments heard in the last hour: police waiting for equipment. No helmets, no riot gear, etc. Cops outnumbered. Police telling residents to flee the area the only way to protect the residents. Only 30 police against 200 rioters in one spot. Outnumbered 20 to 1 in another. Then a comment which made me laugh. “The rioters feel that they are not understood”. Poor babies…
I contrast this with the indelible images of Korea Town in the OJ riots. Armed folks have a chance to live with dignity. Not to cower in fear of those who would harm them for sport, money or hatred.
Again on the international front, it seems Israel has a growing movement to restrict gun ownership. Israel of all places should know better, but to those who might not understand, Israel is a socialist/marxist state in its origins. Those strains are still strong today. So this nanny state BS doesn’t surprise me.
From pro gun blogger Alphecca.com…
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/state-moves-to-strengthen-gun-control-tighten-purchase-rules-1.377692
Greg is on to something alright, but I’d take it a little further. The collectivist philosophy that informs these people enables a delusion that allows them to feel morally superior. I don’t think the philosophy itself is the basis for their position –it’s just a rationalization. It’s all about their feelings. I think most of these people have deep feelings of inadequacy and inferiority, and these collectivist notions allow them to overcome their bad feelings about themselves and feel morally superior to people they intuitively know are better human beings than they are. And they don’t expect to make any of the sacrifices they’re touting –sacrifice is for their inferiors. Eric Hoffer explains these people in “The True Believer.”
Tim, you can’t persuade the kind of people Greg is talking about with any amount of logic or evidence. I think you have to challenge their sense of self-importance and moral superiority by framing questions that only have unpalatable answers. You might be able to shame a handful of them by asking a question such as: so you would sit back and let someone rape and murder your wife and child rather than defend them? or, so, you’re willing to let your wife or child be raped and murdered to feed your ideological pretensions?
But I wouldn’t hold out much hope, because when you scratch a genuine collectivist you find a wannabe Stalin underneath –the kind of person that thinks a million deaths in the name of collectivism is just a statistic.
For Fred Bartlett:
Reference CCW being outlawed in Overland Park in Kansas. This policy is not the case. A municipality cannot override the state law. What you may be thinking of is that Overland Park has banned open carry, which is very rare anyway in that very urban and yuppy part of the KC metro area.
@12bit- I agree your argument would be far more effective. Mine was meant more for tongue and cheek (I’ve been in a few debates where it just wasn’t worth it).
I’m not sure if it’s funny or not but as good as your argument is, I have a hunch a rabid anti-gunner would quickly shift the topic to “illustrate” why society is to blame for crime and we need to help these “poor misguided individuals”.
It almost seems some people enjoy being helpless and like have a nanny society. Not just with personal safety but every aspect of life. Why bother to learn to do stuff yourself when you can just get someone else to do it?
@Tim, oh, I don’t expect them to reply logically or honestly, I would expect them to be flustered because all but the most ideologically committed will realize they either have to admit they’re wrong, at least in some instances (which is essentially a full concession), or look like cowardly scoundrels. If it’s a man the admission of cowardice in this kind of situation is a huge psychological hurdle –and for a man or a woman, defending love ones, especially children, is a natural instinct. So yes, I would fully expect them to change the subject, or end any discussion. I’ve observed this many times.
Also, I agree, we have a huge class of people who want a nanny to take care of them all their lives, and they’re willing to sacrifice their personal autonomy for it. This is epitomized by the UK, as are the results of cultivating such an attitude.
“the modern egalitarian “shall issue” protocol that forces the state to grant the privilege to all sane, law-abiding citizens who apply, ”
That isn’t egalitarian as not all citizens will apply, thus all citizens will not all be equals. The egalitarian protocol is to ban all private firearms.
“It almost seems some people enjoy being helpless and like have a nanny society.”
Bingo!
If you have no control over your situation, you bare no responsibility for the outcome. It has been my observation that personally responsibility really frightens many people. And if your life is a failure, it is comforting to “know” that it is not your fault.
You are completely right, my good sir. Not everyone can or will apply, not everyone who applies can or will carry. But, not everyone can or will register to vote, and not everyone who registers to vote can or will vote in the election. By extension of your argument, we should ban all voting by private individuals, as that is the only egalitarian way to do it. I don’t think you’ll find much traction for that idea among any of the readers here though.